Here's a link to the article on CBC - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/12/13/manitoba-metis-supreme-court-hearing.html
There are many issues that are raised by this hearing that are both troubling and interesting. I think one of the most troubling issues about this is that it falls on an outsider party determining Métis land rights and ultimately, a significant issue for Métis identity as well. As cultural anthropologist and art historian Ruth Phillips recently noted at the College of Art Association Conference in 2011, it is up to Aboriginal people to create their own emic understandings of their cultures, rather than rely on etic understandings. Sadly, however, Métis, like other Aboriginal people, become dependent on these etic understandings (government and other definitions) of Métis culture. The question is, to what degree should Aboriginal people rely on these governmental definitions ? Or should we rely on them at all? Is it purely idealistic to argue that Métis should move beyond these definitions?
Another question raised by this issue: what sorts of evidence will be used to support this case? Many Métis people in the 19th century were illiterate and thus it will likely be hard to find first-hand accounts. Secondly, does this mean that all Métis land claims that have hitherto been ignored and cancelled by the federal government will be opened up again for dispute? This case is part of a large kettle of fish that could be promising for the Métis, yet it also could result in more external dependency for the Métis on governmental definitions of who should be recognized. Thirdly, if the Métis win this case, who will choose who will be re compensated for lost lands and how?
This will be a significant case to watch as we move into 2012.










